From: Junio C Hamano Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 06:32:36 GMT Subject: Re: Couple of read-tree questions Message-ID: <7vvf1l1env.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> In-Reply-To: Daniel Barkalow writes: > (The thread you mention seems to say that we accept entries being missing > from the index as if they were unchanged, but I don't see a good reason > for this; you'd be dealing with the full set in the index for the merge, > even if you don't have a populated working tree) You are correct. I was wondering myself why *both* of us thought (or Linus *seemed* to be agreeing, at least to me) what I was referring to as I+H made any sense while re-reaing the thread. > I should have asked sooner, then. :) There's a bunch of clutter to get it > to work that I can remove if it's not actually necessary. Yeah, removal of dead code! Go wild, please.